Heterosis Studies for Growth, Flower and Yield Characters in Bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.)

Author:

Chidanand Vannuri1*, Vilas D. Gasti2, Vijaykumar Rathod3, Chandrakant S. Kamble4, Dileepkumar Masuthi5, Abdul Rahaman M. Nadaf6 and S.G. Praveenkumar7

Journal Name: Biological Forum – An International Journal, 16(8): 33-40, 2024

Address:

1M.Sc. Student, Department of Vegetable Science,

Kittur Rani Channamma College of Horticulture, Arabhavi (Karnataka), India.

2Professor and Head, Department of Vegetable Science,

Kittur Rani Channamma College of Horticulture, Arabhavi (Karnataka), India.

3Associate Professor, Department of Vegetable Science, 

Kittur Rani Channamma College of Horticulture, Arabhavi (Karnataka), India.

4Assistant Professor, Department of Vegetable Science, 

Kittur Rani Channamma College of Horticulture, Arabhavi (Karnataka), India.

5Assistant Professor and Head, Department of Biotechnology and Crop Improvement, 

Kittur Rani Channamma College of Horticulture, Arabhavi (Karnataka), India.

6Assistant Professor, Department of Entamology, 

Kittur Rani Channamma College of Horticulture, Arabhavi (Karnataka), India.

7Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Education, 

Kittur Rani Channamma College of Horticulture, Arabhavi (Karnataka), India.

(Corresponding author: Chidanand Vannuri*)

DOI: -

PDF Download PDF

Abstract

Bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.) also known as balsam pear or karela, is an easily cultivated plant belongs to the family Cucurbitaceae. It is a native of tropical Asia, more especially of Indo Burma, which includes East India and South China. Despite the crop potential, economic and its medicinal use the present study was undertaken using twelve lines and three testers to develop 36 F1 hybrids in L × T (Line × Tester) pattern. Evaluation of hybrids along with their parents revealed that the cross combinations Katahi Vaibhav × Preethi, Green Long × Preethi and Katahi Vaibhav × Co-1showed highest positive heterosis, which were supercilious for earliness and yield parameters whereas, IC505640-2 × Co-1 and Green Long × Preethi expressed superior for quality parameters resulting as best hybrids. Based on its yield potential and favoured earliness characteristics, the Katahi Vaibhav × Preethi hybrid was chosen as the best hybrid out of 36 cross combinations, with a yield of 14.32 t/ha. Hence the best hybrids are recommended for commercial exploitation of heterosis.

Keywords

Bitter gourd, hybrids, per se performance, Heterosis, Better parent heterosis, Standard heterosis.


Introduction

The common cucurbit vegetable known as the bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.) belongs to the Cucurbitaceae family. It is a native of tropical Asia, more especially of Indo Burma, which includes East India and South China. China, Malaysia, India, tropical Africa and North and South America are all home to bitter gourd. The annual and perennial climber species in the Momordica genus includes the widely cultivated Momordica charantia. It has 22 chromosomal groups and is a diploid. The Latin word momordica, which means "to bite," relates to the leaf of the bitter melon plant, which has jagged edges and looks as though it has been bit. Because every part of the plant is bitter, it is also known as the "bitter melon" or "bitter gourd." Other names for it include Nigauri or Goya in Japanese, Balsam pear in English, Karela in Hindi and Haagalakaayi in Kannada.Momordicin, an alkaloid distinct from the cucurbitac in present in other cucurbits, gives the immature tuberculate fruits the distinct bitter flavor. A common cucurbitac in triterpenoid called 'charatin' has a significant impact on lowering blood sugar levels. In addition to being a cheap source of protein and minerals, the fruits are also high in iron (1.8 mg), calcium (20 mg), phosphorous (55 mg), vitamin A (210 IU) and vitamin C (88 mg/100 g), (Aykryod, 1963). Tender vine tips are a rich source of vitamin A. It has twice as much calcium and beta-carotene as broccoli and spinach (Bhatt et al., 2017).

Bitter gourd extract has antioxidant, antibacterial, antiviral, anti-hepatotoxic, and anti-ulcerogenic properties. Blood sugar levels may also be lowered as a result (Welhinda et al., 1986; Raman and Lau 1996). Recently, bitter gourd was found to have anti-cancerous properties. According to Dia and Krishnan (2016), the new BG-4 peptide from Momordica charantia L. encourages apoptosis in human colon cancer. According to ethno-medical accounts, M. charantia is used in folkloric medicine to cure ulcers, diabetes and infections (Gurbuz et al., 2000; Scartezzini and Speroni 2000; Beloin et al., 2005), while the root decoctions have abortifacient properties, leaf and stem decoctions are used to cure dysentery, rheumatism and gout (Subratty et al., 2005).

Bitter gourd is a herbaceous fast growing annual climber which is monoecious and grows up to 5 meter height with thin stems, tendrils and long tap root system with the duration of 100-120 days. Vine bearing yellow-coloured flowers, while pistillate flowers are solitary, short or long pedunculate and staminate flowers have five stamens. On the leaf axil, pistillate and staminate flowers were produced. The bitter gourd pistillate flower is made up of a columnar, hollow style, an inferior ovary and a three-lobed, moist stigma (Deyto and Cervancia 2009). Due to its monoecious character, it is highly cross-pollinated which bears pistillate and staminate flowers on different nodes on the same plant and high degree of heterozygosity. Gynoecious sex form (bears only female flowers) also reported in India (Ram et al., 2006). Anthesis typically occurs between 3:30 am to 7:30 am,when flowers are completely open and pollen viability is lost relatively rapidly. Prior to or following flower opening, the stigma is typically responsive for one day before drying out and turning brown (Rasco and Castillo 1990). 

By employing the recognized practical tool of heterosis breeding, breeders can improve yield and other economic characteristics. Not every hybridization leads to the development of hybrid vigor. Heterozygous offspring can only be born to a particular set of parents. Therefore, in order to construct an effective heterosis breeding program in bitter gourd, it is required to specify the genetic type and quantity of quantitatively inherited traits as well as the predicted prepotency of parents in hybrid combinations. Therefore, in order to choose superior parents, one must be aware of both the general combining ability (gca) effects, which aid in parent selection and the specific combining ability (sca) effects, which aid in hybrid identification. The information obtained by this method would greatly facilitate the understanding of the degree of heterosis in F1 hybrids. This heterosis and combining ability study aids in identifying the ideal parental combinations based on strong GCA and SCA.

Many native cultivars or land races of bitter gourd that are grown in southern India have low yield potential. The focus of research is to increase production, uniformity and fruit quality through exploitation of heterosis using regionally adapted bitter gourd genotypes for commercial cultivation. With the aforementioned information, it can be highlighted that phenotypic diversity, heterosis and combining ability investigations are crucial for providing the data needed for any commercial varietal development effort.


Material & Methods

The present experiment was conducted at Kittur Rani Channamma College of Horticulture, Arabhavi, Belagavi district, Karnataka. The genotypes used in the present study comprised of twelve lines namely IC505640-1IC505640-2, IC505640-3, IC66023, IC470556-1, IC470555, IC65972-1, IC470553-2, Katahi Vaibhav, Green Long, Dharog Local and Monoecious, three testers namely Co-1, Preethi and Mysore Local which are of broad genetic base and all these genotypes were collected from various parts of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and New Delhi which were choosen based on their per se performance for yield attributes. These genotypes were crossed in line × tester pattern to obtain 36 hybrids and the obtained F1’s were grown in randomized block design with two replications along with two commercial checks (SW-814 and NS-1024). During experimentation all the necessary cultural practices were followed and plant protection measures were taken. The data on various earliness, flowering, yield and quality parameters were recorded from five randomly selected plants. The mean data was subjected to analysis in INDOSTAT 2.0 software to obtain heterosis percentage for various parameters. The heterosis was estimated from mean values, and its significance was tested using t-test.

Results & Discussion

Positive or negative heterosis refers to the F1 hybrids superiority or inferiority to their parents, respectively. Growth and yield factors can be manifested via positive heterosis. The earliest parameters are shown by the negative heterosis. Vine length varied greatly among genotypes, ranging from 182.56 cm (Green Long × Preethi) to 278.86cm (Katahi Vaibhav × Mysore Local) among crosses, from 174.42 cm (IC470555) to 281.06 cm (IC505640-2) among lines and from 208.12 cm (Co - 1) to 245.09 cm (Mysore Local) among testers The cross between IC5470555 and CO-1 showed the highest levels of heterosis over the better parent (30.29%) and commercial check (27.28%). Out of 36 crosses, one cross over better parent and one cross over commercial check, showed positive significant heterosis, which were found to be similar with the results of Talekar et al. (2013) ; Kumar et al. (2020). The usage of multiple genetic stocks as well as other environmental factors are attributed for the magnitude of heterosis being large in comparison to Laxuman et al. (2012) findings and low in comparison to Verma et al. (2016)'s.

At final harvest, there were 2.46 primary branches (IC470555) to 3.44 primary branches (Katahi Vaibhav) among lines, 2.40 primary branches (Preethi) to 3.29 primary branches (Co -1) among testers and 2.39 primary branches (IC505640-2 × Preethi) to 3.42 primary branches (IC66023 × Mysore Local) among hybrids. Both directions have a large amount of heterosis. The cross IC470555 × Preethi showed the most positive heterosis over better parent (28.80%), whereas the cross IC66023 × Mysore Local showed the highest positive heterosis over the commercial check (28.09%). Two crosses over better parent and four crosses over commercial check out of 36 crosses indicated positive significant heterosis. These results are in confirmation of the results of Singh et al. (2020). Different responses for number of branches per plant may be caused by the genotype vigour, genetic makeup and intrinsic traits. 

Vegetable crops should take the earliness feature into account in order to maximise their potential economic yield. When determining earliness, characteristics like the days to 50 % flowering and days to the first fruit harvest are highly helpful. Negative heterosis is preferred for these traits. Days to 50 per cent flowering varied considerably among genotypes, ranging from 38.88 days for Katahi Vaibhav to 59.05 days for IC505640-3 among lines, from 42.18 days for Mysore Local to 47.21 days for Co - 1 among testers and from 35.09 days for Green Long × Preethi to 47.99 days for IC505640-2 × Co-1 among cross combinations. The cross between IC505640-3 × Co-1 had the highest magnitude of heterosis and the most significant negative heterosis over better parent (-20.05%) and the cross Katahi Vaibhav × Mysore Local over commercial check (-26.25%). Six of the 36 crosses over better parentand two of the crosses over commercial check exhibited negative and substantial heterosis for days to 50 per cent flowering, which was consistent with the findings of Dey et al. (2007), although the range of heterosis was slightly higher than that of Kumar et al. (2020); Kumari et al. (2020).

Significant differences were observed among the genotypes for days to first fruit harvest. It varied from 51.06 days (Katahi Vaibhav) to 73.53 days (IC65972-1) among lines, 55.73 days (Preethi) to 58.78 days (Co - 1) among testers and 42.08 days (Katahi Vaibhav × Mysore Local) to 60.23 days (IC66023 × Co - 1) among crosses. Both directions have a large amount of heterosis. IC65972-1 × Mysore Local showed the highest and most significant negative heterosis over better parent (-22.97%). The cross Katahi Vaibhav × Mysore Local showed the highest and most significant negative heterosis over commercial check (-22.83%). Eight crosses over better parent and five crosses over standard checkout of 36 crosses showed substantial and favourable heterosis for days to first fruit harvest which was in accordance with the work of Dey et al. (2007). The usage of several lines and testers is responsible for days to first fruit harvest.

The ultimate goal of any breeding programme is target to achieve maximization of marketable yield. Since yield is a complex and polygenically inherent trait, number of fruits per plant and average fruit weight are directly contributing to yield in brinjal breeding. The number of fruits per vine varied greatly between genotypes, ranging from 7.97 (IC65972-1× Co-1) to 31.56 (Katahi Vaibhav × Preethi) among hybrids, 13.20 (Mysore Local) to 17.65 (Preethi) among testers and 7.88(IC5470556-1) to 19.68 (Katahi Vaibhav) among lines. The degree of heterosis was significantly positive when compared to better parent and commercial check. The cross Katahi Vaibhav × Preethi showed the highest levels of heterosis over better parent (155.10%)and commercial check(172.71%). 16 crosses over the better parent and 19 crosses over commercial check showed substantial heterosis for the number of fruits per vine out of the total 36 crosses. The present results are in agreement with the earlier findings of Dey et al. (2007). The usage of several lines and testers is responsible for number of fruits per plant. 

For fruit length, the genotypes varied greatly among one another. It varied from 6.28 cm (IC65972-1 × Mysore Local) to 18.58 cm (Monoecious × Preethi) among crosses, 8.15 cm (IC505640-2) to 16.07 cm (Katahi Vaibhav) among lines and 8.75 cm (Co - 1) to 11.58 cm (Preethi) among testers. The cross Katahi Vaibhav × Preethi showed the highest levels of heterosis over better parent (91.97%) and commercial check (55.01%). Of the 36 cross combinations, the fruit length exhibited a substantial positive heterosis for ten crosses over beteer parent and three crosses over commercial check. It was found similar with Ranpise et al. (1992); Laxuman et al. (2012). Different responses for fruit diameter may be caused by the genotype vigour, genetic makeup and intrinsic traits.

Fruit diameter varied significantly among the genotypes and which ranged from 28.17 mm (Katahi Vaibhav) to 43.18 mm (IC470556-1) among lines, 21.27 mm (Mysore Local) to 31.63 mm (Preethi) among testers and 21.97 mm (IC65972-1 × Preethi) to 35.84 mm (IC505640-3 × Mysore Local) among crosses. The amount of heterosis was considerable in both directions. The cross Katahi Vaibhav × Preethi had the most positive and significant heterosis over better parent (60.95%) and commercial check (78.23%). Of the 36 cross combinations,6 crosses over better parent and two crosses over commercial check showed significant positive heterosis, which is similar to the findings of Ranpise et al. (1992); Naik et al. (2020). Different responses for fruit diameter may be caused by the genotype vigour, genetic makeup and intrinsic traits.

For average fruit weight, genotypes differed considerably. It ranged between 26.83 g (IC470555) and 73.00g (IC470553-2) among lines, 25.17 g (Mysore Local) and 79.16 g (Preethi) among testers and 37.13 g (Dharog Local × Mysore Local) and 91.16 g (Katahi Vaibhav × Preethi) among hybrids. The hybrid IC66023 × Mysore Local has the highest heterosis of better parent (32.68%), followed by Katahi Vaibhav × Co-1 (17.22%). The hybrid Katahi Vaibhav × Preethi showed the most heterosis for commercial check (38.58%), followed by Green Long × Preethi (35.65%). Out of 36 cross combinations, 5 crosses showed positive and substantial heterosis for average fruit weight over better parent and 11 crosses over commercial check, which was consistent with Al-Mamun et al. (2015); Malviya et al. (2017). The usage of several lines and testers is responsible for the fluctuating average fruit weight.

Yield in any crop is the final product of different yield components. This ultimate produce in the plant is expressed through mutual balancing of characters. Fruit yield per plant varied greatly across genotypes, ranging from 0.75 kg (IC65972-1) to 1.91 kg (Katahi Vaibhav), 0.77 kg (Mysore Local) to 1.67 kg (Co-1) and 1.03 kg (Dharog Local × Mysore Local) to 2.72 kg (Katahi Vaibhav × Preethi) among crosses. The crosss IC470556-1 × Preethi showed the most positive and significant heterosis over better parent (49.37%). The cross Katahi Vaibhav × Preethi showed considerable positive heterosis over commercial check(100.00%). Among the 36 crosses, 22 crosses over better parent and 28 crosses over commercial check showed considerable positive heterosis. Similar results were also reported by Ranpise et al. (1992); Dey et al. (2007); Laxuman et al. (2012); Al-Mamun et al. (2015); Naik et al. (2020); Malviya et al. (2017). Varied magnitude of heterosis for yield parameters is attributed to use of different lines and genetic stocks in different studies.

Fruit yield per hectare varied greatly between genotypes, ranging from 3.98 t (IC65972-1) to 9.45 t (Katahi Vaibhav) among lines, 3.68 t (Mysore Local) to 9.96 t (Preethi) among testers and 4.78 t (Dharog Local × Mysore Local) to 14.32 t (Katahi Vaibhav × Preethi) among crosses. Maximum significant positive heterosis over better parent was seen in the cross IC66023 × Co-1(100.52%). The cross Katahi Vaibhav × Preethi has the most significant heterosis over commercial check (87.07%). Out of 36 crosses, 23 crosses over better parent and 9 crosses over commercial check, exhibited positive and substantial heterosis for fruit yield per hectare. These results were within range observed by Ranpise et al. (1992); Dey et al. (2007); Laxuman et al. (2012); Al-Mamun et al. (2015); Naik et al. (2020); Malviya et al. (2017).

Table 1: Per se performance of parents for growth and flowering parameters in bitter gourd.

Sr. No.

Genotypes

Vine length at final harvest (cm)

No. of primary branches at final harvest

Days to 50 % flowering

Days to first fruit harvest


Lines

1.

IC505640-1

215.41

2.59

44.68

54.86

2.

IC505640-2

281.06

3.21

46.53

57.32

3.

IC505640-3

251.55

3.42

59.05

70.52

4.

IC66023

233.33

2.57

47.43

55.95

5.

IC470556-1

201.91

3.21

48.71

61.16

6.

IC470555

174.42

2.46

56.51

70.00

7.

IC65972-1

186.55

3.32

61.71

73.53

8.

IC470553-2

256.97

3.11

56.78

71.02

9.

Katahi Vaibhav

265.68

3.44

38.88

51.06

10.

Green Long

258.05

3.32

49.23

54.79

11.

Dharog Local

218.55

3.19

52.24

58.85

12.

Monoecious

234.39

2.90

49.79

55.67


Testers

1

Co – 1

208.12

3.29

47.21

58.78

2

Preethi

240.80

2.40

42.96

55.73

3

Mysore Local

245.09

3.20

42.18

56.85


Commercial checks

1

SW-814

228.27

2.94

41.87

49.98

2

NS-1024

218.16

2.67

42.22

54.53


S.Em±

17.43

0.15

3.22

2.87


CD at 5%

49.47

0.44

9.13

8.13


CD at 1%

65.91

0.59

12.17

10.84

Table 2: Perse performance of crosses for growth and flowering parameters in bitter gourd.

Sr.

No.

Genotypes

Vine length at final harvest (cm)

No. of primary branches at final harvest

Days to 50 % flowering

Days to first fruit harvest


Crosses





1.

L1 × T1

203.97

3.02

40.59

53.85

2.

L1 × T2

263.50

2.99

45.27

58.33

3.

L1 × T3

277.75

2.81

46.02

55.91

4.

L2 × T1

236.52

2.98

47.99

59.87

5.

L2 × T2

264.59

2.39

40.44

49.64

6.

L2 × T3

213.32

3.08

35.58

48.94

7.

L3 × T1

253.72

2.66

37.65

45.84

8.

L3 × T2

183.50

2.57

42.12

53.12

9.

L3 × T3

269.10

2.93

45.93

58.08

10.

L4 × T1

197.79

3.14

45.08

60.23

11.

L4 × T2

264.59

2.73

39.75

55.59

12.

L4 × T3

226.97

3.42

41.87

53.83

13.

L5 × T1

237.59

2.47

42.22

55.59

14.

L5 × T2

231.20

3.29

38.7

49.98

15.

L5 × T3

259.14

3.18

40.1

54.53

16.

L6 × T1

271.16

2.81

43.28

54.18

17.

L6 × T2

260.23

3.18

46.52

56.65

18.

L6 × T3

194.71

3.11

44

54.53

19.

L7 × T1

193.69

2.91

41.16

48.25

20.

L7 × T2

194.71

2.89

42.57

48.25

21.

L7 × T3

253.72

3.21

38.35

43.79

22.

L8 × T1

183.50

2.60

43.64

54.89

23.

L8 × T2

260.23

2.60

42.57

54.89

24.

L8 × T3

253.72

2.53

41.51

54.89

25.

L9 × T1

244.01

3.12

35.93

43.10

26.

L9 × T2

254.80

2.47

40.81

46.53

27.

L9 × T3

278.86

2.40

31.14

42.08

28.

L10 × T1

249.60

2.75

38.13

49.64

29.

L10 × T2

182.56

2.85

35.09

48.94

30.

L10 × T3

266.01

3.18

40.03

45.84

31.

L11 × T1

222.97

2.70

46.9

53.12

32.

L11 × T2

268.31

2.78

43.66

58.08

33.

L11 × T3

270.70

2.41

40.88

60.23

34.

L12 × T1

217.72

3.10

42.52

55.59

35.

L12 × T2

199.37

2.97

42.63

53.83

36.

L12 × T3

244.54

3.33

40.21

55.59

Table 3: Per cent heterosis over better parent (BP) and commercial checks (CC) for growth and flowering parameters in bitter gourd.

Sr.

No.

Crosses

Vine length at final harvest (cm)

No. of primary branches at final harvest

Days to 50 % flowering

Days to first fruit harvest

BP

SH

BP

SH

BP

SH

BP

SH

1.

L1 × T1

-5.31

-10.64

-8.22

2.73

-9.15

-3.05

-1.84

7.75

2.

L1 × T2

9.43

15.44

15.25*

1.7

5.37

8.12

4.66

16.72**

3.

L1 × T3

13.33

21.68

-12.48*

-4.43

9.10

9.92

-1.65

11.85*

4.

L2 × T1

-15.85

3.62

-9.44

1.36

3.14

14.63

4.44

19.79**

5.

L2 × T2

-5.86

15.91

-25.66**

-18.57**

-5.86

-3.4

-10.92

-0.69

6.

L2 × T3

-24.10*

-6.55

-4.20

4.94

-15.65**

-15

-13.91**

-2.08

7.

L3 × T1

0.86

11.15

-22.22**

-9.37

-20.25**

-10.07

-22.01**

-8.28

8.

L3 × T2

-27.05*

-19.61

-24.85**

-12.44

-1.95

0.6

-4.68

6.29

9.

L3 × T3

6.98

17.89

-14.47*

-0.34

8.89

9.7

2.16

16.21**

10.

L4 × T1

-15.23

-13.35

-4.26

7.16

-4.51

7.68

7.64

20.52**

11.

L4 × T2

9.88

15.91

6.23

-6.98

-7.47

-5.04

-0.25

11.22*

12.

L4 × T3

-7.39

-0.57

6.71

16.52*

-0.73

0.97

-3.79

7.7

13.

L5 × T1

14.16

4.09

-24.81**

-15.84*

-10.57

0.84

-5.42

11.22*

14.

L5 × T2

-3.98

1.29

2.18

11.93

-9.92

-7.55

-10.31

9.23

15.

L5 × T3

5.73

13.53

-1.09

8.35

-4.93

-4.22

-4.08

9.1

16.

L6 × T1

30.29*

18.79

-14.31*

-4.09

-8.32

3.38

-7.82

8.4

17.

L6 × T2

8.07

14.00

28.80**

8.18

8.28

11.12

1.65

13.35*

18.

L6 × T3

-20.55

-14.70

-2.81

6.13

4.31

5.11

-4.08

9.1

19.

L7 × T1

-6.93

-15.15

-12.48*

-0.85

-12.81**

-1.7

-17.91**

-3.46

20.

L7 × T2

-19.14

-14.70

-13.08*

-1.53

-0.91

1.68

-13.42**

-3.46

21.

L7 × T3

3.52

11.15

-3.31

9.54

-9.08

-8.4

-22.97**

-12.39*

22.

L8 × T1

-28.59*

-19.61

-20.85**

-11.41

-7.56

4.24

-6.62

9.82

23.

L8 × T2

1.27

14.00

-16.40*

-11.41

-0.91

1.68

-1.51

9.82

24.

L8 × T3

-1.26

11.15

-21.06**

-13.80*

-1.59

-0.86

-3.45

9.82

25.

L9 × T1

-8.15

6.90

-9.32

6.13

-7.59

-14.19

-15.59**

-13.77**

26.

L9 × T2

-4.10

11.62

-28.24**

-16.01*

4.96

-2.52

-8.87

-6.9

27.

L9 × T3

4.96

22.16

-30.28**

-18.40**

-19.90**

-25.63**

-17.58**

-15.81**

28.

L10 × T1

-3.27

9.35

-17.02**

-6.13

-19.23**

-8.92

-9.40

-0.69

29.

L10 × T2

-29.26*

-20.02

-14.01*

-2.73

-18.32**

-16.18

-10.68

-2.08

30.

L10 × T3

3.08

16.54

-4.07

8.52

-5.10

-4.4

-16.33**

-8.28

31.

L11 × T1

2.02

-2.32

-17.66**

-7.84

-0.66

12.03

-9.63

6.29

32.

L11 × T2

11.43

17.55

-12.70*

-5.11

1.63

4.3

4.2

16.21**

33.

L11 × T3

10.45

18.59

-24.80**

-17.89**

-3.08

-2.35

5.94

20.52**

34.

L12 × T1

-7.12

-4.62

-5.48

5.79

-9.93

1.56

-0.14

11.22*

35.

L12 × T2

-17.21

-12.66

2.59

1.19

-0.77

1.84

-3.31

7.7

36.

L12 × T3

-0.22

7.13

3.74

13.29*

-4.67

-3.95

-0.14

11.22*


S.Em±

28.88

28.88

0.19

0.19

3.37

3.37

2.49

2.49


CD at 5%

58.64

58.64

0.39

0.39

6.85

6.85

5.05

5.05


CD at 1%

78.67

78.67

0.52

0.52

9.19

9.19

6.77

6.77











Note: * and** indicate significance at values at p=0.05 and p=0.01, respectively

BP = Better parent; SH = Heterosis over commercial check (SW-814)



Table 4: Per se performance of parents for yield parameters in bitter gourd.

Sr. No.

Genotypes

Number of fruits per plant

Fruit length(cm)

Fruit diameter (cm)

Average

Fruit weight (g)

Fruit yield

per plant (kg)

Fruit yield per ha (tonnes)


Lines

1.

IC505640-1

10.71

8.45

28.23

66.35

0.71

4.98

2.

IC505640-2

12.82

8.15

30.97

76.43

0.98

8.48

3.

IC505640-3

12.16

11.83

27.19

45.20

0.55

4.91

4.

IC66023

8.08

10.26

28.68

34.96

0.37

4.32

5.

IC470556-1

7.88

11.89

43.18

34.33

0.27

8.03

6.

IC470555

10.89

9.02

32.85

26.83

0.29

4.21

7.

IC65972-1

15.00

9.70

29.95

45.79

0.69

3.98

8.

IC470553-2

13.16

15.01

32.89

73.00

0.96

4.83

9.

Katahi Vaibhav

19.68

16.07

28.17

69.34

1.37

9.45

10.

Green Long

16.86

14.93

33.27

71.56

1.21

8.58

11.

Dharog Local

13.80

13.13

30.66

55.32

0.77

8.01

12.

Monoecious

15.12

9.02

30.46

59.47

0.90

5.23


Testers

1

Co – 1

13.95

8.75

27.15

73.27

1.02

8.71

2

Preethi

17.65

11.58

31.63

79.16

1.39

9.96

3

Mysore Local

13.20

5.23

21.27

25.17

0.34

3.68


Commercial checks

1

SW-814

13.44

18.07

27.81

61.20

0.82

8.04

2

NS-1024

12.39

17.13

28.57

65.78

0.81

7.65


S.Em±

0.60

0.75

2.17

1.55

0.05

0.27


CD at 5%

1.69

2.14

6.15

4.40

0.13

0.77


CDat 1%

2.25

2.85

8.20

5.87

0.17

1.02

Table 5: Per se performance of crosses for yield parameters in bitter gourd


Sr. No.


Genotypes

Number of fruits per plant

Fruit length (cm)

Fruit diameter (cm)

Average

Fruit weight(g)

Fruit yield

per plant(kg)

Fruit yield per ha (tonnes)


Crosses

1.

L1 × T1

17.90

15.26

34.65

49.30

0.88

8.61

2.

L1 × T2

18.34

15.77

33.18

54.71

1.01

8.45

3.

L1 × T3

15.67

14.40

24.58

41.34

0.65

5.01

4.

L2 × T1

23.20

12.22

24.65

76.48

1.77

8.52

5.

L2 × T2

27.10

12.56

23.11

81.58

2.21

12.95

6.

L2 × T3

25.30

13.62

29.26

55.37

1.40

7.56

7.

L3 × T1

19.37

8.95

27.67

72.30

1.40

8.45

8.

L3 × T2

9.54

10.51

29.94

76.40

0.73

6.49

9.

L3 × T3

11.32

11.03

35.84

43.87

0.50

7.84

10.

L4 × T1

12.26

10.92

31.00

62.98

0.77

7.45

11.

L4 × T2

15.04

12.71

24.65

86.10

1.29

8.23

12.

L4 × T3

23.24

9.15

33.04

57.28

1.33

7.98

13.

L5 × T1

26.06

7.31

35.53

64.61

1.68

8.33

14.

L5 × T2

17.55

15.36

26.37

76.58

1.34

12.48

15.

L5 × T3

24.69

6.32

29.30

42.95

1.06

8.22

16.

L6 × T1

15.62

13.54

33.38

77.78

1.21

7.77

17.

L6 × T2

24.60

11.30

30.65

69.58

1.71

8.72

18.

L6 × T3

14.95

16.23

35.78

42.25

0.63

5.12

19.

L7 × T1

7.97

11.88

26.02

52.88

0.42

8.18

20.

L7 × T2

9.33

9.41

21.97

61.19

0.57

4.89

21.

L7 × T3

23.64

6.28

30.09

40.72

0.96

5.17

22.

L8 × T1

18.94

10.52

29.44

57.36

1.11

8.28

23.

L8 × T2

12.98

11.73

24.45

64.28

0.83

12.34

24.

L8 × T3

17.25

11.15

25.38

40.92

0.70

7.92

25.

L9 × T1

28.65

14.12

26.77

85.89

2.46

13.78

26.

L9 × T2

31.56

13.59

28.75

91.16

2.87

14.32

27.

L9 × T3

19.23

14.24

26.49

66.52

1.28

8.33

28.

L10 × T1

19.28

12.91

26.89

78.79

1.52

8.29

29.

L10 × T2

29.78

8.16

25.61

89.23

2.66

14.10

30.

L10 × T3

17.34

12.78

31.24

61.02

1.06

5.87

31.

L11 × T1

9.16

11.72

27.24

67.73

0.62

12.12

32.

L11 × T2

24.48

13.45

31.82

61.43

1.50

7.68

33.

L11 × T3

22.94

16.50

31.06

37.13

0.85

4.78

34.

L12 × T1

22.37

10.25

29.30

62.70

1.40

8.21

35.

L12 × T2

18.16

18.58

34.95

68.34

1.24

8.29

36.

L12 × T3

21.38

15.54

30.09

55.10

1.18

7.87

Table 6: Per cent heterosis over better parent (BP) and commercial checks (CC) for yield parameters in bitter gourd.


Sr. No.


Crosses

Number of fruits per vine

Fruit

length (cm)

Fruit diameter(cm)

Average

fruitweight(g)

Fruityield

per plant(kg)

Fruityieldperha (tonnes)

BP

SH

BP

SH

BP

SH

BP

SH

BP

SH

BP

SH

1.

L1 × T1

108.10**

61.44**

-13.78**

-3.18**

-11.46

-10.14

-32.71**

-19.44**

5.99

21.65**

28.32**

7.09

2.

L1 × T2

135.14**

82.41**

-14.17**

-3.63**

4.88

19.29

-30.89**

-10.60**

0.63

9.28*

21.48**

5.16

3.

L1 × T3

112.70**

65.01**

-11.23**

-0.36

-12.93

-11.63

-37.70**

-32.45**

0.9

-23.02**

0.6

-37.69**

4.

L2 × T1

38.49*

38.49*

-10.81**

0.18

-20.41

-11.36

0.07

24.97**

9.36*

28.52**

0.47

5.97

5.

L2 × T2

-23.47

-23.47

-18.67**

-8.69**

-26.94*

-16.9

3.06

33.30**

27.49**

49.83**

52.77**

61.13**

6.

L2 × T3

64.15**

64.15**

-14.94**

-4.48**

-5.52

5.21

-27.55**

-9.53**

-32.16**

-20.27**

-10.85*

-5.97

7.

L3 × T1

-0.36

3.12

-7.80**

3.49**

1.75

-0.52

-1.32

18.14**

3.59

18.90**

26.01**

5.16

8.

L3 × T2

32.88*

37.52*

-18.60**

-8.60**

-5.33

7.68

-3.49

24.84**

2.53

11.34*

-6.75

-19.28**

9.

L3 × T3

-23.1

-20.42

-5.61**

5.96**

-3.99

-6.13

-2.94

-28.32**

24.11**

-4.47

59.67**

-2.49

10.

L4 × T1

90.84**

68.20**

-9.21**

1.93*

8.11

11.47

-14.04**

2.91

34.13**

53.95**

100.52**

67.35**

11.

L4 × T2

105.36**

81.00**

-18.89**

-8.96**

-22.07*

-11.36

8.77**

40.69**

-2.53

5.84

18.25**

2.36

12.

L4 × T3

75.95**

55.08**

-8.34**

2.91**

15.22

18.81

32.68**

-6.41

48.47**

5.09

84.72**

-0.75

13.

L5 × T1

6.04

3.83

-12.97**

-2.28**

-17.01

-8.22

-11.82**

5.57

13.17**

29.90**

3.74

3.61

14.

L5 × T2

23.47

20.9

-19.18**

-9.27**

-16.63

-5.18

-3.26

25.13**

49.37**

62.20**

71.61**

71.39**

15.

L5 × T3

44.55**

41.54*

-17.64**

-7.53**

-4.75

5.34

-0.50

-29.81**

9.22*

5.84

2.37

2.24

16.

L6 × T1

12.18

-3.76

-16.22**

-5.91**

1.6

20.03

6.16*

27.09**

-17.37**

-5.15

15.80**

-3.36

17.

L6 × T2

62.07**

39.05*

-17.60**

-7.48**

-6.71

10.21

-12.10**

13.69**

25.95**

36.77**

25.29**

8.46

18.

L6 × T3

47.72*

26.74

-10.71**

0.27

-12.13

3.81

-2.12

-30.96**

46.84**

-20.27**

21.62*

-36.32**

19.

L7 × T1

92.37**

51.88**

-5.68**

5.91**

-13.14

-6.44

-27.83**

-13.59**

-10.18**

3.09

21.91**

1.74

20.

L7 × T2

33.02

5.02

-17.86**

-7.75**

-30.52**

-20.98

-22.70**

-0.02

-33.23**

-27.49**

-29.74**

-39.18**

21.

L7 × T3

19.97

-5.28

-13.56**

-2.96**

0.45

8.2

-11.07*

-33.46**

53.25**

-18.90**

29.90**

-35.70**

22.

L8 × T1

7.35

7.07

-14.20**

-3.63**

-10.48

5.86

-21.71**

-6.27

-0.9

13.75**

23.40**

2.99

23.

L8 × T2

82.89**

82.41**

-5.86**

5.69**

-25.63*

-12.06

-18.80**

5.03

44.30**

56.70**

77.30**

53.48**

24.

L8 × T3

65.59**

65.15**

-17.33**

-7.17**

-22.82*

-8.74

-43.95**

-33.14**

35.55**

-1.72

63.98**

-1.49

25.

L9 × T1

84.33**

81.52**

-13.74**

-3.14**

-4.97

-3.74

17.22**

40.34**

19.37**

56.70**

31.99**

55.22**

26.

L9 × T2

155.10**

151.21**

-13.17**

-2.55**

60.95**

83.06**

15.16**

48.95**

42.41**

86.94**

51.45**

78.11**

27.

L9 × T3

6.91

5.28

-12.05**

-1.25

-5.96

-4.75

-4.07

8.69*

-1.57

29.21**

-11.90**

3.61

28.

L10 × T1

17.99

23.43

-8.34**

2.91**

27.29**

52.30**

7.53*

28.74**

-8.51*

18.21**

-3.38

3.11

29.

L10 × T2

103.63**

113.02**

-11.29**

-0.40

31.65**

57.52**

12.72**

45.80**

34.57**

73.88**

64.34**

75.37**

30.

L10 × T3

-18.63

-14.88

-9.53**

1.57*

-6.12

12.33

-14.73**

-0.29

-35.64**

-16.84**

-31.59**

-26.99**

31.

L11 × T1

-21.84

-19.75

6.78**

19.89**

-11.15

-2.03

-7.56*

10.67**

25.75**

44.33**

51.31**

50.75**

32.

L11 × T2

-18.8

-16.62

3.59**

16.31**

0.62

14.44

-22.40**

0.38

-7.91

8.36

-4.12

-4.48

33.

L11 × T3

57.66**

61.88**

4.37**

17.20**

1.29

11.69

-32.88**

-39.33**

-22.56**

-29.21**

-40.32**

-40.55**

34.

L12 × T1

-11.72

24.14

-3.12**

8.78**

-3.82

5.34

-14.43**

2.45

-0.6

14.09**

22.35**

2.11

35.

L12 × T2

0.21

40.91*

-2.47**

9.50**

-11.89

0.22

-13.67**

11.66**

15.82**

25.77**

19.11**

3.11

36.

L12 × T3

-14.23

20.6

-1.68*

10.39**

-1.21

8.2

-7.35*

-9.97**

10.16*

-3.09

50.48**

-2.11


S.Em±

2.08

2.08

0.73

0.73

3.31

3.31

2.13

2.13

0.06

0.06

0.38

0.38


CD at 5%

4.22

4.22

1.49

1.49

6.72

6.72

4.33

4.33

0.13

0.13

0.77

0.77


CD at 1%

5.66

5.66

2.01

2.01

9.02

9.02

5.81

5.81

0.17

0.17

1.04

1.04

Note: * and** indicate significance at values at p=0.05 and p=0.01, respectively

BP = Better parent; SH= Heterosis over commercial check (SW-814)


Conclusion

Based on mean performance, the top promising crosses for marketable yield per plant were Katahi Vaibhav × Preethi (2.87 kg), Green Long × Preethi (2.66 kg) and Katahi Vaibhav × Co-1 (2.46 kg). The hybrids namely, Katahi Vaibhav × Preethi, Green Long × Preethi and Katahi Vaibhav × Co-1 were best for earliness and yield parameters, the hybrids namely IC505640-2 × Co-1 and Green Long × Preethi were best for quality parameters and also expressed significant and desirable best parent heterosis and standard heterosis for the major traits. Thus, these hybrids can be exploited in practical plan breeding for selection of better transgressive segregants and they may also be exploited through heterosis breeding programme in order to achieve hybrids with high fruit yield.

Future Scope

The crosses Katahi Vaibhav x Preethi, Green Long × Preethi and Katahi Vaibhav × Co-1 were the superior hybrids selected for yield These crosses can be further assessed for their yield to confirm their potentiality and also their adaptability to different areas before exploiting them on commercial scale. The parents Katahi Vaibhav, Green Long, Co-1 and Preethi have produced good yield per plant and they can be used in identifying superior new heterotic combinations.


References

Al-Mamun, M. H., Rashid, M. H., Uddin, M. N., Islam, M. R. and Asaduzzaman, M. (2015). Heterosis Studies in Bitter Gourd. Int. J. Veg. Sci., 1-9.

Aykryod, W. R. (1963). The nutritive value of Indian foods and planning of satisfactory diet. ICMR Special Rep. Series No. A2.

Beloin, N., Gbeassor, M., Akpagana, K., Hudson, J., Soussa, K. D., Koumaglo, K. and Arnason, J. T. (2005). Ethnomedical uses of Momordica charantia (Cucurbitaceae) in Tago and relation to its phytochemistry and biological activity. J. Ethnopharmacol., 96(1-2), 49-55.

Bhatt, L., Singh S. P., Soni, A. K. and Samota, M. K. (2017). Combining ability studies in Bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.) for quantitative characters. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci., 6(7), 4471-4478.

Dey, S. S., Behara, T. K., Munshi, A. D., Mahapatra, T., Rakshit, S. and Arora, A. (2007). Studies on heterosis and inheritance of sex expression in bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.). Ph. D. Thesis, I. Institute Hort. Res., New Delhi.

Deyto, R. C. and Cervancia, C. R. (2009). Floral biology and pollination of Ampalaya (Momordica charantia L.). Philipp. Agric. Scientist, 92(1), 8-18.

Dia, V. P. and Krishnan, H. B. (2016). BG-4, a novel anticancer peptide from bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.) promotes apoptosis in human colon cancer cells. Scientific reports6(1), 33532.

Gurbuz, I., Akyuz, C., Yesilada, E. and Sener, B. (2000). Anti-ulcerogenic effect of Momordica charantia L. fruits on various ulcer models in rats. J. Ethnopharmacol., 71(1-2), 77-82.

Kumar, B., Singh, A. K., Pattnaik, P., Mishra, D., Pal, A. K. and Singh, B. K. (2020). Line × Tester analysis for estimation ofheterosis in bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.). J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem.9(2), 486-490.

Kumari, M., Kumar, J., Kant, K., Singh, B. K., Singh, V. K., Shree, S., Bhardwaj, A. and Kumar, A. (2020). Heterosis in bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.) for yield and yield related traits. J. Pharmacog. Phytochem.9(1), 1235-1239.

Laxuman, Patil, S. A., Salimath, P. M., Dhammatti, P. R., Byadgi, A. S. and Nirmala, Y. (2012). Heterosis and combining ability analysis for productivity traits in bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.). Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 25(1), 9-13.

Malviya, A. V., Bhanderi, D. R., Patel ,A. I., Jadavand, N. K. and Patel, U. V. (2017). Heterosis for fruit yield and its components in Bottle Gourd [ Lagenaria siceraria (Mol.) Standl.]. Trends in Biosci., 10(2), 783-787.

Naik, B. P. K., Dalai, S., Mallikarjunrao, K. and Kumar, P. (2020). Heterosis studies in bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.) for yield and yield attributes. Int. J. Chem. Stud., 8(5), 2615-2618.

Ram, D., Kumar, S., Singh, M., Rai, M. and Kalloo, G. (2006). Inheritance of gynoecism in bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.). J. Hered.97(3), 294-295.

Raman, A. and Lau, C. (1996). Anti-diabetic properties and phytochemistry of Momordica charantia L. (Cucurbitaceae). Phytomedicine, 2(4), 349-362.

Ranpise, S. A., Kale, P. N., Desale, G. V. and Desai, U. T. (1992). Heterosis in bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.). South Indian Hort., 40(6), 313-315.

Rasco, A. O. and Castillo, P. S. (1990). Flowering patterns and vine pruning effects in bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.) varieties ‘Sta. Rita’ and ‘Makiling’. Phillipp. Agric. Sci., 73(3-4), 311-322. 

Scartezzini, P. and Speroni, E. (2000). Review on some plants of Indian traditional medicine with antioxidant activity. J. Ethnopharmacol., 71(1-2), 23-43.

Singh, P., Singh, A. K., Mishra, D. and Kumar, R. (2020). Genetic magnitude of heterosis for yield and quality traits in bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.). Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci., 9(3), 2472-2483.

Subratty, A. H., Gurib-Fakim, A. and Mahomoodally, F. (2005). Bitter melon: an exotic vegetable with medicinal values. Nutr. Food Sci., 35(3), 143-147.

Talekar, N. S., Yaddona, M. A. and Kulkarani, G. U. (2013). Heterosis studies for quantitative traits in bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.). Progressive Res., 8(Special issue), 650-653.

Verma, R. S., Pratap, N., Shekhar, R., Singh, R. P. and Vishnoi, R. K. (2016). Exploitation of heterosis for yield and its components in bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.). Plant Arch., 16(1), 403-412.

Welhinda, J., Karunanayake, E. H., Sheriff, M. H. H. and Jayasinghe, K. S. A. (1986). Effect of Momordica charantia on the glucose tolerance in maturity onset diabetes. J. Ethnopharmacol., 17, 277-282.

How to cite this article

Chidanand Vannuri, Vilas D. Gasti, Vijaykumar Rathod, Chandrakant S. Kamble, Dileepkumar Masuthi, Abdul Rahaman M. Nadaf  and S.G. Praveenkumar  (2024). Heterosis Studies for Growth, Flower and Yield Characters in Bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.). Biological Forum – An International Journal, 16(8): 33-40.